Quentin Tarantino’s World War II Epic “Inglourious Basterds”

Sophomoric. Sadistic. Racist. Long-winded. Repugnant. Repetitive. Lacking in depth. Quentin Tarantino’s two-and-a-half hour epic about a squad of Jewish-American commandos and a French Jew out to avenge the murder of her family at the hands of the Nazis is a serious-minded treatise that gives fleeting concern to black comedy, and showcases some of the director’s most tedious passages of his career. Inglourious Basterds, which won’t have Tarantino winning any spelling bees, turns potentially furtive material into an endurance test, while simultaneously showcasing some of the most repellent imagery seen in the auteur’s canon, at least since the police officer had his ear carved off in Reservoir Dogs. With the exception of a hair-raising burning theatre climax that attempts (but fails) to bring together scattered plot elements from four previous “chapters” Tarantino opts to bypass the rich possibilities in Third Reich satire, instead focusing on scalpings, gougings, chokings and mass slaughter, which in large measure are given Kill Bill- styled operatic treatment.

The film opens on a most promising note with its strongest sequence set in a farmhouse where a mortified Frenchman is forced into admitting he has hidden a Jewish family under the floor boards. Ever the astute cinephile, Tarantino emulates the suspense-laden spaghetti westerns of Sergio Leone, replete with Ennio Morricone’s music, in setting the stage for a mass-slaughter under the caption ‘Once Upon A Time’ in case any one of us forget who he’s essaying. In this one scene the dialogue, spoken in two languages is nail-biting, combining comic levity with ominous realization. The Austrian actor Christoph Waltz, who delivers the film’s best performance, carries the scene with his flawless linguistics and charismatic demeanor. The Jewish woman who escapes the carnage to flee into the countryside, later appears as the owner of a small Parisian cinema in the film’s third chapter. The theatre is used by Joseph Goebbels to premiere his most recent propaganda film. The now glamourous woman, Shosanna, is stalked by a young Nazi sharp shooter named Zoller (who is the star being featured in the Goebbels film for his killing of hundreds of Allied troops in a three-day siege) but she resists his advances and rather inevitably meets up with the Colonel (Waltz) who slaughtered her family in the farm house and who is now in charge of security. Again, predictably, the woman plots to undermine the big gala, a celebration where top-flight Nazis are due to attend.

At this point, we have already made the acquaintance of the ‘inglourious basterds,’ a band of Jewish soldiers out to torture and terrorise Germans in occupied France. The hillbilly Lt. Aldo Raine, played most engagingly, if one-note, by Brad Pitt is the leader, and in an introduction to their methods and are regaled with some repugnant scenes of scalpings and baseball bat attacks, the former accentuated by a most revolting sound design that captures every ripping cut. Tarantino makes no bones about it in his screenplay that asserts that every German was a Jew hater, and earned the most brutal retribution imaginable, yet in these scenes he strives for humor, which largely backfires. Pitt is also features in one nauseatingly repellent scene where the Lt. tortures a woman by sticking his finger into a bullet wound.

The dullest scene, unsurprisingly, is the one with British soldier and former film critic Michael Fassbender, who with an officer (Mike Myers) and Churchill (Rod Taylor) are conspiring to add further chaos to the opening night proceedings. The tense scene in the underground bar ends with a trademark Tarantino coda involving a Mexican stand-off and an all-out massacre. Of course the destruction of the theatre, where Tarantino gets to play Hitler himself, as hundreds of people are burned alive after the Fuhrer’s elation at the killing of Western soldiers documented in the film, is Tarantino in remorseless mode.

But despite the often dazzling filmmaking technique and a fair share of witty dialogue, Inglorious Basterds never quite comes together, and the individual sequences are like short films, with none necessarily having much to do with the one before or after, regardless of recurring characters. Without any cohesion, the film becomes distancing, even if the off-putting grotesqueries further eroded any emotional connection to the material. The fact that there is not a single likable character in the film pretty much sums the entire enterprise up. And that Tarantino has succeeded in making the Nazi hunters more despicable than their pray is no small achivement. This rambling train wreck of a movie of cinematic influences and stand alone set pieces never comes together and the result is a film that won’t leave any kind of a mark on revisionist history, nor on the cinematic landscape.

Rating: * * 1/2 (of 5)

Note: I saw ‘Inglourious Basterds’ on Friday afternoon at the Edgewater multiplex with Lucille, Sammy and Danny, and then a second time on Tuesday night at the Ridgefield multiplex with Dennis and the two boys again. Lucille and Dennis were on the same page with me as to its ultimate worth.

Like this:

Related

117 Responses

Gotta disagree with you on this one, Sam. Like the rest of Tarantino’s films, I thought it was a blast, and likely the most interesting, substantive thing he’s done since “Pulp Fiction”. “Jackie Brown” was cool, deftly written and delivered with some great peroformances, but its plot is a little too commonplace to really startle the imagination, and the somewhat pedestrian 1.85:1 work here is proof positive that the director works best with the widest, most ambitious scope possible– nothing less than 2.35:1 will do. “Kill Bill” was a riot when it first came out (I even saw the first part twice in the same day– it’s a real great pick-me-up, perfect to knock me out of any bad mood) but it went on a little bit too much, especially in the second part, and while Caradine delivers a great swan-song performance, it feels like Tarantino was holding back a little too much where it really counted.

I’ll not go into details on my feelings about “Inglorious Basterds”, as I might want to write it up fully later on (even though the site I write for is more or less out to lunch, for the time being). Still, I’ll say this– it’s the most fun I’ve had at the movies this year so far, probably the best combination of craft and entertainment all summer. “Star Trek” was fun for the masses, but an utter, laughable waste of time for me– I honestly have a hard time understanding why anybody thought this movie was anything short of unwatchable. “Moon” was a fine accomplishment, and a repeat-viewer for me, but pretty much the dictionary definition of acquired taste. “G.I. Joe” was stupid as hell, but clever and fun in a Bond-film kind of way (a mix of the Moore year’s ridiculousness and the Brosnan era’s expert polish). “Public Enemies” featured some brave filmmaking from Michael Mann, but another tediously moody performance from Johnny Depp. “A Perfect Getaway” was a damn fine suspense thriller and character piece until it blew its cover. “District 9″ had some fun stuff, but took itself way too seriously and suffered for it. “Cold Souls” was a boring, vague mess that, sadly, probably could’ve been a decent movie if wasn’t so busy trying to rip off Charlie Kaufman.

I still need to see “Flame & Citron”, but it feels like that’s the only other essential release for me this summer. “Inglorious Basterds” hit the spot for me.

Well Bob, this is a response for the ages, in fear of being reprimanded by some other powers here. The more I get to know you and read your stellar analysis of films, directors and cultural matters in general, the more I am greatly impressed. I respect your love for INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, and frankly I wished I shared it. Nonetheless, I am the kind of moviegoer who gets more hot and bothered when someone doesn’t feel the love for something I have a great passion for. The other way around, as is the case here, doesn’t bother me in the least. I did see the film twice, and I stand by the issues I had with it. At the end of the day the material here just didn’t interest me all that much. It’s a goof, if a stylish one.
I LOVED “Flame & Citron.” Now there’s a film about this subject that was engrossing and cohesive. It’s one of the best films of 2009. I disagree that the summer suffered from a dearth of quality release, though I’ll agree there weren’t all that many. I was no fan of “Public Enemies” nor “Moon” and I haven’t yet seen “Cold Souls” nor “G.I. Joe.” However I must say “au contraire” to you on “Star Trek” and “District 9,” both of which will probably rank among my favorite films of the year (the emotional resonance of both is one compelling reason). I have made a decision to pen a review of the latter, and have already reviewed the former here at WitD. You made no mention of Kathryn Bigelow’s “The Hurt Locker,” which is surely one of the best films of the year, and I assume you haven’t yet seen “Up” yet, another that rates high for me. On the foreign front of course there are “Summer Hours,” “Of Time and the City”, “Somers Town,” “In the Loop,” “Tokyo Sonata,” and “Seraphine,” all of which offer various pleasures. “Tetro” was fine, but flawed.
Wonderful response here Bob, I greatly appreciate your insights.

Yeah, I forgot to mention “The Hurt Locker”– no doubt a great movie, but a very harrowing one. I have ample respect for it, but I can’t really say that I enjoyed it, per se. Definitely a must see, though. Bigelow was at the top of her game here. “Up” was nothing special, to my eyes. A quaint, moving little movie in its own ways, but not really up to the Pixar standard.

“Star Trek”– is it just me, or was New-Coke Kirk kind of a douche? I couldn’t emotionally connect with him, I couldn’t understand the motivation of the villain (His planet is destroyed, he’s sent back in time to before it was destroyed, and he still wants revenge for it being destroyed? Huh?), nor could I follow Abram’s sloppy shaky-cam mis-en-scene, or his dumbed-down, yet overly complicated plot. An epic fail on all counts, for me. “District 9″, at least, had a plot and action you could follow pretty easily, and a genuine emotional focus that wasn’t belabored. I think it’s pretty clueless politically, but it’s easily the better of those two films.

Too bad we don’t see eye to eye on “Moon”– probably my favorite film of the summer. I wouldn’t expect anybody to dig “G.I. Joe”, unless they have kids, grew up with the toys/comics or the occasional nonsense blow-em-up adventure. I’ll say this for it, though– Sommers’ command of action is far more fluid, clearheaded and easy to follow than Abram’s. And it’s probably better than “Transformers” (I wouldn’t really know for myself. I couldn’t even sit through the first one on HBO, let alone drag myself to a theater for the sequel).

Bob: DISTRICT 9 is definitely “clueless” in a political sense, but for me that was a minor quibble as the man’s inhamanity to man theme was powerfully conveyed dwarfing everything else. There were few minor technical complaints I have, but all in all one of the best films of the year.
STAR TREK got spectacular reviews well into the 90’s in fact, but it didn’t do all that well with the blogger critics. This is really how well the recurring characters come across, I agree, and for me it all worked.
MOON was a mjor bore for me, but one person suggested I was in a very bad mood the weekend I saw it, as Michael Jackson died the afternoon of teh day I went. So I’ll see this one again. I am a big fan of composer Clint Mantsell, and wasn’t disappointed in that sense.

District 9– We agree on the symptom, but come to different diagnoses. I’ll admit, it’s a fun movie, but the weird Apartheid stuff really got in the way for me. Like “Inglorious Basterds”, it’s telling an alternate-history, but unlike Tarantino’s film, it isn’t giving you all the pertinent info.

Moon– Like I said, it’s an acquired taste, a return to glacially slow-moving sci-fi features. I’m really into that, and thoroughly dug the “THX 1138″/”Solaris” vibe Duncan Jones taps into, even if he was aiming for more of a “2001”/”Silent Running” thing. It’s on my list of favorites, but I can understand how it can be a bit off-putting.

Star Trek– It’s odd. I’m something of the opposite of you, Sam, in that I can always appreciate if somebody doesn’t dig one of my personal favorites, but when a film I despise becomes popular, it really boils my blood. Abram’s film was only really useful to me as a barometer of what people seem to want– flashy special effects and action-sequences without being applied with any coherent cinematography, framing or editing; bold, headstrong character strokes without any sense of personal likeability or motivation; elaborate, complicated storylines that offer little in the way of plausible logic or straightforward common-sense. I walked out of the theater thinking one thing: “This is why I’m a ‘Star Wars’ fan”.

A dissappointment through and through. Especially as I’ve always enjoyed the occasional slice of “Star Trek”, and am a devoted fan of Abram’s “Lost” and “Fringe”. Then again, Abrams more or less left the Island behind to make stuff like “Mission Impossible 3″, “Cloverfield” and this, so obviously I’m not in tune with his sensibilities.

“It’s odd. I’m something of the opposite of you, Sam, in that I can always appreciate if somebody doesn’t dig one of my personal favorites, but when a film I despise becomes popular, it really boils my blood. ”

Bob that is odd indeed!!! But hey we both have a passion there one way or another. But in all seriousness, how do you explain the 96% or so commulative rating STAR TREK has? It this a fluke, or have these people suddenly lost their sanity. Remember now many of the reviews are effusively favorable and the writers would shock you.

There’s a number of reasons, and not all of them really have to do with the quality of the film, or in my opinion the lack thereof. Abram’s “Star Trek” represents a very strange combination of definitions– by virtue of its time-travel plot, it is a sequel, prequel and remake all at once. Rewriting the history of the original television series as liberally and haphazardly as it does, it both remains within the confines of “Trek” continuity while at the same time betraying every single ounce of it with a new timeline all its own. As such, it’s a very strange piece of work– like any traditional sequel, it continues the stories and universe of previous entries, and like a traditional prequel, it goes back in time to revisit the youths of main characters before their primary adventures, but like a remake, it refashions the substance of those characters and adventures to form a whole new story that bears only superficial resemblance to the universe it claims lineage to.

Time-travel gave Abrams & Co. the license treat Roddenberry’s original series in the same way that a filmmaker treats a novel, as little more than the springboard source material. Abram’s “Star Trek” is less a continuation of the “Trek” brand than a reinvention of it, rewriting history to suit their own needs, adapting the original series more or less in the same manner that other TV-shows have been adapted for the movies. The time-travel aspect, however, allows them to claim legitimacy in their connection to “Trek” canon in the same exact breath with which they refashion it. Therefore, it allows the film to seem at once fresh and familiar to new audiences, escaping the fate of big-screen parodies (“The Brady Bunch”, “Dukes of Hazard”, “Starsky & Hutch”, etc) and drastic, serious-minded reinventions (Michael Mann’s “Miami Vice”, arguably “The Fugitive”)– films that were occasionally popular, but never really taken seriously. Abram’s “Trek” gave audiences everything and nothing they were expecting– it adopted the same campy look as the series while filming it through a modern-day filter, took the same basic 60’s era characters and plopped them in a 21st century-era plot, all while referencing the original series through the cameo appearance of Leonard Nimoy. For the audiences who enjoyed it– and there were many– it was a magic combination, the cinematic equivalent of expert alchemy.

For me, however, it was a hollow act of smoke & mirrors. So much of what made the original “Trek” shows and movies worthwhile was hopelessly lost– thought-provoking big-ideas were abandoned– even “The Wrath of Khan” had the Genesis Device, both an elegant sci-fi Cold War metaphor and a practical MacGuffin to fill in plot holes– in favor of a plot so complicated it only made sense if you allowed it to go in one ear and out the other. Re-engineered versions of classic characters like Kirk and Spock felt very unlikable, their original Kennedy-era spirit of optimism and wonder mixing unpalatably with modern-day edge and badassery. Finally, the whole presentation smacked of an unwholesome mix of pretension and laziness– the shaky camerawork, lens-flare cinematography and hectic editing patterns made it very difficult for me to enjoy the movie as a piece of cinematic craft, much less as escapist entertainment. Abram’s decision to play nearly everything out in close-ups and dutch-angles made it incredibly difficult for me to follow half of what was going on at any given moment, and while it’s the sort of gritty-realism driven cinema we’ve come to expect from soft-core adventures nowadays, I can’t help but feel that in pushing the audience to get caught up in the action, the filmmakers forgot to let us keep track of the action, as well.

Granted, these are all criticisms that the majority of audiences didn’t voice themselves, but I would venture that it isn’t necessarily because nobody noticed them. Rather, it goes back again to the strange mix of sequel/prequel/remake the film is. Abram’s “Star Trek” was something of a continuity-paradox– it was new enough to seem inventive and exciting to new audiences, yet just old enough to provide a comfortable resemblance to something they were aware of, lulling them into a false sense of cinematic security. It referenced continuity without expecting them to keep track of it in order to understand the story at hand– indeed, such knowledge probably only would get in the way of one’s appreciation.

Therefore, audiences weren’t obligated to take it quite as seriously as ordinary prequels (Lucas’ last three “Star Wars” films) or latter-day revisionist remakes (Nolan’s “Batman” films, Martin Campbell’s “Casino Royale” and the new Bond-era it ushered with Daniel Craig). That’s what helped it escape a large amount of criticism, I believe, and it may be what could limit its newfound popularity in the long-run. It was a novel spin on something familiar, but not novel enough to equal the level of invention on display in Nolan and Campbell’s work. What it reminds me of, most of all, are Rob Zombie’s recent “Halloween”. By going back to the childhood of Michael Myers, it puports to tell the storied past of John Carpenter’s original film, yet eventually winds up retelling the events from it– what begins as prequel turns into remake. Like the new “Trek”, it helped the filmmakers put a fresh coat of paint on an old warhorse, and allowed him to avoid all the messy continuity nonsense that the many sequels to the original spawned.

But no matter how popular the new series becomes, can it really be anything other than Zombie’s attempt to rewrite Carpenter, just as “Star Trek” can only be Abram & Co’s rewrite of Roddenberry? What bothers me most is that so many new audiences are going to take it all for granted– they simply don’t know or care enough to tell the difference between the old and the new. Either the remake/prequel will supplant the original, or it’ll eventually die out and fade away, as all nostalgia and retro-fads do, and one can only hope that it doesn’t take the original with it.

The flaws are there. It’s just that, thanks to the whole continuity-paradox aspect, audiences aren’t really emotionally or intellectually invested enough to care that much, or think about it that hard. Maybe it’s my error to think about it as much as I am now, because if audiences, critics and the filmmakers themselves didn’t put this much thought into it, maybe it just isn’t even worth the while. For those who enjoyed it, be my guest. I just remain skeptical as to whether it’ll have any real staying power, to be honest.

Well Bob, you have hit a home run with this piece, not that I agree with everything but certainly that Abrams did distort the original timeline premise. Mind you I am a lifelong trekkie, with irreparable ties to the likes of “The City on the Edge of Forever,” “The Menagerie,” “The Corbomite Maneuver,” “The Man Trap,” “Amok Time,” “The Trouble With Tribbles,” “Mirror, Mirror,” “Errand of Mercy,” “The Devil in the Dark,” “This Side of Paradise,” etc, etc. Remember Bob, I’m now in my mid 50’s, so I grew up with this and watched the re-runs. I also grew to LOVE ST:TNG. “The Inner Light” and both episodes of “The Best of Both Worlds” are masterpieces of television.
The new film captures only a measure of this magic.

I really don’t think this film is getting the proper respect it deserves. Now I’m not not calling this a masterpiece for the ages, but I’ll damned if I don’t call this Tarantino’s best and most entertaining film since his underrated 1997 masterpiece Jackie Brown. Tarantino’s ability to blend the genres and movie references has made an over-the-top pop art war film that is so audacious, one can’t help but admire it. This film, like all his films before it, showcases not only Tarantino’s visual style, but his love of cinema; In my eyes, he might be the second coming of Jean Luc Godard. In all honesty, if you tone down the violence and some dialogue, I imagine this probably would what Jean Luc Godard’s vision of war. Basterds also contains some of the best scenes Tarantino ever shot: Of course as you mentioned the phenomenal Opening shot, The wonderfully done bar scene involving the great Michael Fassbinder (star of my favorite film this year, Hunger), and the final sequence involving explosive dynamite and celluloid. Also I see no reason why Tarantino can’t make every Nazi a crazy Jew-hating monster and have fun killing em. Hell I don’t remember too many people commenting on Spielberg for having having killn’ Na-zis’ in any of the Indiana Jones films. But this film is, like his other films, a critique and also a celebration of a forgotten B-film genre. As Kill Bill was to the yakuza/samurai film genre and Jackie Brown was to the Blackxploitation genre, Basterds is to the fictitious, overtly violent, star studded, testosterone dripping war films of the 60s and 70s like Dirty Dozen or Inglorious Bastards (the film Tarantino pays homage to by using the name). But Tarantino takes a step further than the films that he gets inspired from and re-rights history even further. Maybe this film won’t leave any kind of a mark on the cinematic landscape, but who cares. Seeing an a film that takes chances and strives for originality will always get a nod of approval from me any day.

And this is a valid response to the film, one I do respect, no doubt about it. But I neither see Tarantino as an American Godard, nor is his admittedly “audacious” filmmaking really my cup of tea. You mention here at the outset that the film is “not getting the respect it deserves.” This is untrue. At RT, the rating is a superb 88%, though admittedly some ‘key’ critics like Zacharek and Dargis have issues negative appraisals. I love films that are original, I applaud bold filmmaking, I honor one who gambles, and I generally like the subject matter broached here, but for the reasons I explained in my review, I just wasn’t able to connect with nor appreciate this film.
Nonetheless, AnubhavBist, you have again graced this site with your astute insights and knowledge and appreciation for cinema, and I am grateful for that as always.

You should have been told this many times, as not a single one of your past comments was anything less than superlative. I assure you my friend, I have never taken your stellar input at this site for granted. Thanks so much for the kind remarks too.

I always like to hear your view on a film whether we agree or disagree about its level of quality, but I guess I’m just really surprised and confused by a lot of your points.

Tarantino opts to bypass the rich possibilities in Third Reich satire, instead focusing on scalpings, gougings, chokings and mass slaughter, which in large measure are given the Kill Bill- styled operatic treatment.

I mean, honestly, I don’t think “Basterds” is anywhere near as violent as “Pulp Fiction”, nor do I feel like the violence in the film is remotely given the “Kill Bill” treatment. “Kill Bill” is a cartoon through and through, and with “Basterds” Tarantino purposely, clearly, complicates the violent situations in almost every scene, whether it’s the German Officer’s death by bat, the shoot-out at the tavern, the “choking”, or the finale in the theatre. There are certainly exciting moments and lines he wants the audience to applaud, but unlike his previous work, he tries to make you feel guilty about it almost immediately after he pleases. This is the first Tarantino movie WITH more on its mind to me, and I think the odd clash of tone and style with the violence is what makes “Basterds” such an unusual entry to his filmography (one might say a departure of sorts), and to American film this decade. The theatre massacre is exhilarating……it’s also kind of disturbing and horrific, and the way Tarantino holds that slo-mo shot of Eli Roth executing members of the audience is certainly not unintentional.

But to come back to my first point: I don’t think this is Tarantino’s most violent film. Far from it actually. I don’t think his focus is on scalpings, beatings, etc. If anything, his focus is on carefully choreographed suspense, all of which is developed through dialogue.

And this brings me to the next confusing point:

Inglorious Basterds never quite comes together, and the individual sequences are like short films, with none necessarily having much to do with the one before or after, regardless of recurring characters. Without any cohesion, the film becomes distancing…..

This just isn’t accurate. All of the chapters have to do with each other, almost every sequence has a cause and effect that alters the course of the plot, and nothing about the plot is lacking cohesion. Not since “Jackie Brown” has one of his stories actually had this many layers and details interact and unfold.

I think your main criticism comes down to the fact that you didn’t like any of the characters. If you didn’t like them or find them interesting, then naturally the movie will bore you. That’s valid. I disagree, but that’s totally your right as a viewer.

To me “Inglourious Basterds” is about film as a tool of propaganda above everything else, about the freedom it allows the artist whether his intention is morally sound or not, about the way people are affected by moving images, how it inspires us, touches us, horrifies us, how reality and history can be manipulated at the whim of a writer/director, and how the audience that views that product can be manipulated by that whim. This is Tarantino’s own type of meta-cinema, a comment about filmmaking wrapped in another comment that revolves around another comment. Or, to quote a historical figure who makes an amusing appearance midway through the film, “it’s a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma”. That’s how I feel about “Inglourious Basterds”, it’s a strange movie, thrilling, hilarious and unnerving (at very odd moments, no doubt), and very very accomplished.

Yet another absolutely fantastic response (and I dare my friend and colleague Allan Fish to pose otherwise!) and I appreciate your kind remarks there at the outset Ari.
Well, I know Tarantino intended to have his chapters connect, and I did note in my reviewing the reappearance of characters, but for me this was all concealed behind longwinded rhetotic and various plot convolutions. I used the word “necessarily” to connote a disappointment in the execution rather than a repudiation of effective linking.
I never said this was his most violent film. I said its serious tone made the violence more appalling. The ‘carefully choreographed suspense, all of which is developed through dialogue’ may have been the intent, and it may have worked for you, but it misfired, falling into hopeless overwritten rhetorical tedium.
You objected to my comparing INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS to KILL BILL, but Tarantino’s over-the-top stylistics whether in the service of an almost mythical work like the latter, or one that embraces more austere machinations like the former, are consistent.
Tarantino may well have more on his mind with this film than with his others, but he couldn’t quite succeed cinematically is making his case more than just a flippant exercise in self-indulgence that again shows off his penchant for choreographed violence and a love to hear the words of his screenplay spoken. For me the film just didn’t hold interest.
It’s true what you say there Ari, that I have been unduly influenced by my dislike of all the characters. I can’t deny that. But an emotional connection is vital in my sense of aesthetics. I applaud you for presently a superlative case here, but in the end it’s the time-worn adage of ‘beauty in the eye of the beholder’ thing again.
I guess at some point I need to address my major issue here, and that is that I simply don’t care all that much for Tarantino, even while acknowledging his considerable talent.

I’m not a huge admirer of the guy either, Sam. But I think he’s made two great films now, “Inglourious Basterds” and “Jackie Brown”. His personal taste in film is mostly horrible to me (I really don’t like or care about exploitation films), and I definitely feel like his ego and self-aggrandizing make it difficult to respect him as a person. But I’m starting to believe he has the ability to evolve as an artist, so we’ll see where he goes from here. I don’t think he’s the savior of American film, but two great films is no light-weight accomplishment either.

Fair enough Ari. And what you say about his dubious taste and inflated ego is quite true, yet while I can see now why some consider JACKIE BROWN underrated in his canon, I do not nor have ever seen it as a masterpiece. In this sense I agree with Bob Clark that it’s plot may be too ‘common place.’ But I will grant you that the film has gained in esteem since it’s release, and a number of others feel the same way you do. Let’s see what’s up next for him.
Craig Kennedy made a spectacular submission here too, and I must get over to him ASAP. But I’ll check back here, should you respond further.

I have to say, even as an unreserved fan of all his films, I find Tarantino to be pretty insufferable in most interviews.

Having said that, I think his cinematic tastes run a lot further and wider than exploitation genre pictures. That sensibility often gets highlighted in his films, but I wouldn’t discount his appreciation for the New Wave or classic westerns either.

“Inglorious Basterds never quite comes together, and the individual sequences are like short films, with none necessarily having much to do with the one before or after, regardless of recurring characters. Without any cohesion, the film becomes distancing…..”

It’s an excellent piece with your usual trenchant writing, and I admire you for not capitulating to the general concensus. I wasn’t bored while watching this, but it’s was strong stuff in places. You made no mention of that carving at the end which might be the hardest of all to watch. The opening chapter is the best, agreed.

Bravo for taking your stand, Sam. I wish I agreed with a single one of your points, but alas…not so much.

If you really look at how much time in the 2 hour and 30 minute film is spent on “scalpings, gougings, chokings and mass slaughter” it’s not that much. These things stand out because unlike so many other movies the violence is taken very seriously and this is one thing that elevates the film above the rest. Violence is horrible and ugly and it has consequences and that’s how Tarantino employs it. I don’t think he’s intending us to get off on it. I think he’s acknowledging that a certain sick part of human nature craves violence and revenge, but he’s romanticizing it. I don’t think he’s glorifying in it here.

You can call the film disjointed, but I defy you to suggest a single piece that could be pulled out without damaging the film. This isn’t a conventional A to B to C narrative, it’s a thing with layers that build one upon the other and overlap.

I disagree that there are no likable characters. Michael Fassbender and Diane Kruger were both enormously likable – but then you didn’t like that whole scene. The fact we don’t like the rest of the characters, well, war is hell and human beings don’t exactly put their most favorable face forward in such circumstances. I think that’s largely by design in the film.

I’ll agree with you on one point that the film is long and at times slow. I found it suspenseful, but I can see where someone expecting more action might have been bored.

Far from sophomoric, I think this is Tarantino’s most mature film….even more so than Jackie Brown.

Sadistic? Many of the characters are sadistic, yes, but that doesn’t make the film so. I didn’t sense a single moment where we’re meant to feel good about the carnage on the screen.

Remember that scene with Zoller watching his exploits on screen in horror while all the Nazis around him laugh. I think we’re supposed to be identifying with Zoller at that point, not the Nazis.

Racist? I don’t even know what you’re referring to with that statement.

Long-winded? I’ll give you that one.

Repugnant? Personal taste. As with sadistic, I’d argue that some of the characters may be repugnant, but that doesn’t mean the film itself is.

Repetitive? I don’t see how that can be the case since it jumps through 4 chapters all with different characters until they all come together in chapter 5.

This is not to suggest that you should like this movie or that you’re wrong for hating it. You’re actually in pretty good company if you look closely at some of the reviews, but you’ve failed to convince me by your review that I’m wrong for thinking it’s one of the best American movies of the year. I can’t help but think you were repulsed by the violence and it colored your reaction to the rest of the film.

Maybe that’s not fair, but that’s the impression you give in your review.

“You can call the film disjointed, but I defy you to suggest a single piece that could be pulled out without damaging the film. This isn’t a conventional A to B to C narrative, it’s a thing with layers that build one upon the other and overlap. ”

Craig: As I have stated before the film went on…and on…and on in certain spots. I can’t rightfully call for the cutting of entire segments, this is true, but it’s clear to me this film needed some serious editing. I wasn’t comfortable with the method that Tarantino used narratively to build (and overlap) the layers, as I was never engrossed enough to observe that in the first place.

The ‘racist’ contention stands as Tarantino’s script lumped all Germans together as Jew haters, and the goon squad aimed their own vitrol at all inhabitants of Deutschland. This is historically inaccurate and in bad taste.

The film is not narratively repetitive, but thematically redundant. I think we got the message earlier on.
The sadiscm evident in Tarantino’s work was evident since his first film, in he dastardly torture scene of the police where he lulled over and caressed it’s unfolding. You are right when you say that the tortures, scalpings, and excessive violence added up to just a fraction of the running time, but I never meant to assert that it was otherwise, just that these moments were exceedingly gruesome and repellent, and were even accentuated by that suggestive sound design.
Where I disagree with you most perhaps is your contention that this is the ‘most mature film since JACKIE BROWN.” First of all, I saw JACKIE BROWN played it safe in comparison to the other films, so perhaps this is why it is seen as mature. But this newest film for me is nonsensical and disposable, with no serious thematic relevance or resonance. In this sense, Tarantino lapsed.
None of the MAJOR characters are likable, even if a few (the ones you mention) are fair enough.
Your contention that Tarantino is not ‘glorifying’ violence, and rather is ‘romanticizing’ it is not one I agree with at all. His personal obsession with exploitation leads me to believe otherwise.

At the end of the day, what can I say here? Your presence here is always a special treat, you are one of the best there is, and your arguments are unfailingly erudite and informed. It will never cease to amaze me how with certain films two people come away with such disperate reactions.

Luckily and happily Craig, you and I agree maybe 80% of the time, which all things considered is an excellent ratio.

Something I’ve been thinking about lately for ‘food for thought’. Does a piece of fiction (like a film or movie) have to feature likable characters for us to care about them?

i think of ‘Le samourai’ off hand (I just watched it), or maybe a ‘Lost Highway’ both films I call great works, and I’m not sure there is a character in sight I ‘like’. What I’m asking is is this a prerequisite? Hence my use of the DeKooning can we just like something that’s fantastic to look at or see the beauty in it’s creation? I wonder.

I’d also add as for IB goes I find Shoshanna incredibly likable… downright ‘It girl’ type stuff, but I digress. I also don’t find Zoller that broadly painted either as a Nazi.

Jamie: That is an excellent (and rightly inevitable) point. The answer of course is a resounding NO. However, there always must be something in the viewer’s mind to compensate for this absence. Take for example another recent film where there wasn’t a single likable character, BURN AFTER READING by the Coens. I liked that film, because there was a disarming and satiric quirkiness that pervaded almost every scene. The Tarantino film didn’t remotely have that kind of mitigating appeal, at least not for me. GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS is another film where all the characters are ‘unlikeable’ but it worked for varying reasons.

I think if you look back Sam, all of the victims of the Basterds were SS or Gestapo. To a man, these were bad people fully committed to the extermination of Jews. The film never makes a statement about ordinary Germans or even ordinary German soldiers.

The men in the bar may not have been SS or Gestapo (except the one), but they were regrettable collateral and you were made to feel bad for the new father.

So yes, I still reject your calls of racism.

And until you tell me what you’d take out, I can’t really agree with your suggestion the film needs to be edited either or that the editing itself was sloppily done. Sally Menke is a pro through and through. It’s easy to say in a movie you didn’t like that there should be less of it.

I also said above that I agree there were some slow stretches and I got restless. I don’t think you can blame the editing though. I think Tarantino was reaching for development of suspense by delaying the action and in a few cases he might have pushed it too far.

I don’t believe he is either glorifying OR romanticizing violence. I think he’d be the last person to say that he doesn’t like seeing violence in films, but I do believe he made it unpleasant for a reason…and not because he got off on it.

That to me is a part of his thematic maturity. I think also he restrained his usually snappy dialogue and used it in a way that builds his film up rather than stands out and calls attention to itself for its own sake.

Col. Landa’s speech about rats and squirrels is one of the best things Tarantino has ever written.

And again, I don’t believe the characters were MEANT to be likable. Revenge twists people and makes them ugly…even relatively decent people like Shosanna. That is the tragedy and irony of the story.

That you can’t find thematic relevance or resonance doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

More than WWII or more than revenge or more than the Holocaust, I think in the end this film was literally about movies. How movies can be used to twist our perceptions of history (as with Goebbels) or how they can be used to comment on it or even how they can be a force of good. This is a movie completely infused with cinema and its power…literally and metaphorically.

I do think it was multi-layered and very complex with numerous overlapping parallels. I haven’t teased them all out yet, but I touched on a number of them in my own review.

I think of all the times we’ve disagreed, this is probably the strongest, but that’s ok. I doubt either of us will bring the other around to our way of thinking and that’s ok too. As you say, we agree more often than not.

Craig: It’s subtle racism by omission that is implied here. Tarantino presents ALL Germans as Nazis, SS or Gestapo, when he could well have shown the common country German, uncorrupted and innocent. This is the issue I had here. It was uncompromised stereotyping. But it won’t be offensive to most, I’ll admit it. But it explains why I leveled the charges of racism that I did.

When a film is overlong or it comes off as tedious, it is always first blamed on the editor or on the director’s decision not to tighten the editing. While I can’t question your immersion and satisfaction with the film as it turned out, I did see it twice and both times was bored with much of it. Coming from my corner, you immediately take issue with overlength, and while not offering specific narrative or technical suggestions, you come up with a generalization. The Churhill scene for me went nowhere, and hence could have been trimmed. But I know and respect that you feel differently.

“I don’t believe he is either glorifying OR romanticizing violence. I think he’d be the last person to say that he doesn’t like seeing violence in films, but I do believe he made it unpleasant for a reason…and not because he got off on it.”

I’m just not so sure I agree with this, but OK, we can just agree to disagree.

Granted, but I must call it the way I see it. Some see it my way while others do not.

“More than WWII or more than revenge or more than the Holocaust, I think in the end this film was literally about movies. How movies can be used to twist our perceptions of history (as with Goebbels) or how they can be used to comment on it or even how they can be a force of good. This is a movie completely infused with cinema and its power…literally and metaphorically.”

This is generally the argument that is posed with EVERY Tarantino film, that his subjects are ultimately about movies, which are informed and referenced in scenes. As I originally stated, Leone and even Hitchcock are (with little subtlety) suggested in that still effective opening farm house sequence. When you suggest that the movie is “infused with cinema and its power….literally and metaphorically” you say something which can be applied by me to so many other films by other directors and by Tarantino himself. It may have been crafted with such intent, but it’s the processing from the viewer’s perspective that yields disperate results. In other words, it had no special effect on me.

You have injected this film, this thread, this discussion with invaluable insights, and I thank you for that.

Re: the perceived racism and lack of uncorrupted, innocent German citizenry in the narrative. Just a quick point: the film is set in Nazi-occupied France. It would have been pretty extraneous to have had some “common country Germans” in there just to make a point that not every German on the planet is unrepentant. I don’t think it’s necessary to include that any more than it’s necessary to include non-murderous Americans. The audience knows there are great people in the world. But this film was not about them. It was about inglourious basterds, so that’s what we get. And that prefix on the first word is I think very telling as to what Tarantino’s intent here regarding the glorification or romanticism of violence is.

Jenny these are fair and reasonable points. My position on what Tarantino ascribed to his violence in this instance is based on what I know of his discussions and particular interests. I can’t dismiss those solely on the use of a prefix, which he even parlays here into a deliberate mispelling of the title.

………good luck Sam! If I were in your shoes I’d submit my resignation on this thread! But I’ll say that your review was excellent, no matter how much agreement or disagreement it instigates. I’ll be checking back here to see how you deal with the unrest………

I feel for you Sam, but as Mr. Kennedy stated above you are hardly a stand-alone in your reactions. I remember reading Ms. Dargis in The New York Times, who by and large was less than ambilvalent about the film. I don’t think her objections were quite the same in objecting to the violence, but there’s no question she was unimpressed. If you saw it twice, I think you are coming to the table well prepared.

Indeed Craig, and it was your encouragement at LIC (along with LIC regulars Joel, Ari, Chuck, Dan, Jenny and Christian that convinced me to write) It’s a fair enough review, nothing special. I can do better when I am impressed with something, as is the case with most people.

I don’t get what all the hub-bub about this film is all about. Once the French farm sequence and the baseball bat moment are over I started seeing EVERYTHING in this film begin to fail. And while I can deal with the violence, a Tarantino trademark, I have more issues with the tedium of the scene progressions. The sequence in the pub, the strudel speech, Christoph Waltz “terms of surrender”. These monoloques went on forever, and I found myself shifting in my seat wanting to yell: GET ON WITH IT!!!!! Tarantino is a man of visual excesses, no question, and I overlook violence that I consider gratuitous (its just me there). But what I won’t forgive him for is turning his back in the concise and snappy dialogue and monoloques that made his name. I think he was so concerned about capturing the way the Nazi’s verbally genuflected, that he didn’t realize he was adding tedium to suspense. These speeches are so loaded with hot air they could have filled every baloon to lift the house in UP! I didn’t care for this film. and I’m done.

Stretching is a good term, I’ve heard Tarantino say the cellar scene was a ‘rubber-band scene’ in that he wanted it to keep stretching and stretching until it popped.

As I said elsewhere (and have seen you have to) saying that cellar scene needs editing, one just needs to ask the person how they would go about doing it. There is no way you can take anything out of that scene and still retain the power that it has.

I enjoyed reading this Sam, even if I obviously disagree. I’d be interested to see the age breakdown of the people who like and dislike this film.

Surely I’m under 30 so I believe my demographic loves the film (this I’d admit I’m not wholly comfortable with, as that same demographic probably loved ‘The Dark Knight’, ‘Transformers 2′ ect), where as many of the people I am finding that don’t like it are older. This of course isn’t to imply you’re an old fogey who ‘just doesn’t get it’. It just sort of reminds me of my parents reservations for my love of alternative rock in the 90’s…

Jamie, say it like it is. I’m an old fart (I turned 55 yesterday in fact) LOL!!!! and I tend to have certain tastes that sometimes tunes out directors who are excessively violent (although my issues with this film are far beyond that). But I love Todd Haynes, P. T. Anderson, the Cohens (and they are no strangers to violent stories) Darren Aronofsky, Soderburgh and other hip and ultra-modern directors. I’d say Tarantino is the exception rather than the rule.

Well a day late, Happy 55th. Hope there was a hell of a party, or one is coming this weekend.

But to continue the thought of modern directors you do like, most are are (relatively) calm, in regards to violence. Or– in line with the 70’s masters before them (Scorsese, De Palma, ect). I’d ask you what your opinions are of TRUE gore/violence masters like Takashi Miike, Gaspar Noé, Chan-wook Park, Kinji Fukasaku, Michael Haneke, or a Stuart Gordon (I had to include Gordon for personal reasons)? I leave off Cronenberg as I know your opinions about him, and Eli Roth because I think as a director he’s limited–to put it nicely.

I’m curious to know what I’ll think about Ingloriourioususes Basturds but have no plans to see it at present. Like everyone under the sun, I think Tarantino got over-hyped but that was generally years ago and he’ll probably be stuck with backlash for the rest of his career. But he’s a gifted filmmaker (a fact we have to more or less take for granted in order to overlook) and he does his thing and that’s cool. I’ll share my thoughts when I do see it.

Movie Man, I must admit I can’t wait for you to see this, as I am really interested in some shared discourse. Yes, being too mild and ‘pansy toting’ doesn’t bring out much in the comment section, as Allan has told me in rather ruthless terms many times. Problem is I’m always far more interested in talking about what I like, but I must play this game from both sides of the fence.
Thanks to you and Jamie for the encouragement here!

If all you care about is comment totals, then yes you should just storm in and shout controversial negative opinions and then sit back and watch the chaos. Jeff Wells, a professional, does this rather remarkably, but the guy also has soul cancer and for all intents he seems to be a rather unhappy fellow. Plus his game gets old really quickly.

As for you Sam, all I ask is that you be honest. I like hearing your opinions both positive and negative. I’d hate to think of you going negative just because it would make for a more controversial blog. The internet is already crowded with that nonsense. It’s less than a dime a dozen. I read you because I like your enthusiasm and not because you use your movie knowledge as a weapon to cow people and assert your cultural superiority. People who do that are usually bogus anyway and are just trying to cover up for their own insecurities.

Craig: I will never change, and I will always be honest. I am far more interested in what I like than what I dislike, and most of my reviews will be of films that gave me a positive experience, although there will always be the odd one as in this instance.
Everything you say here about Jeff Wells and potential blogger motivation is most true, no question about that.

Sam, you handled yourself exceedingly well here, both in your original review, and in your sharp responses to those who entered comments. You know my issues with Tarantino, so I’ll be returning here in the near future. Sue e mailed me to say she got a charge out of your agressiveness. I think the Movie Man is right. We need some vinegar on our salad too.

LOL Andrew!!!!!! True enough, we have carried the torch for the Davies film since the beginning of the year, and I’m sure in December that will be seen as one of the year’s best films without question.
I will look forward to reading your typically superlative take at Gateway. In my running all over, I have neglected to go there as of late, and as a result I am the loser. Most of the blogosphere is with you as you can see on this thread for example. The only indefference of the dozens of reviews and short recaps has come from Pat, Rick, Fox and Marilyn, (and Dennis of course) and none of those were remotely outright pans. There has been MUCH effusive praise. Thanks for stopping by Andrew.

Well Dee Dee, I wasn’t deliberately hiding it by now that you mention it, let’s just say that I could have predicted the future. The “someone else” is someone we are both very good friends with. Hint: His blog is called ‘The Powerstrip.” Thanks so much for that birthday link and for brightening up my day as you always do.

I’m cross-posting from other blogs because I’m too lazy and tired to type up multiple versions of the same thoughts on the films :). So here are my initial thoughts after returning from the theater:

Just got back from seeing IB and just thought I’d jot down a few thoughts. I guess on first impression, I’m kind of in the middle in regards to the film. It’s certainly bloody and gory, but the violence doesn’t really bother me, particularly considering the context of the film. That being said, the movie (and by this I guess I’m saying the dialogue) was nowhere near as funny as I expected. Outside of Brad Pitt, there wasn’t any of the dark humor that I expected based on parts of Pulp Fiction and similar efforts. There were definitely moments (I loved the part where they’re pretending to speak Italian), but not as many as I would have liked for a 2 1/2 hour movie. It felt at times like I was watching scenes/sequences that were meant to be humorous but just weren’t for me — although, for others in the theater, they obviously were.

And while I am by no means a stickler for historical accuracy (JFK ranks among my personal 4 or 5 favorite films), the creative license taken here is stepping out too far even for me. Yes, I understand that it makes no claims to accuracy and that it is following the “Once Upon a Time…” idea, but it still seems a bit much. This is not like he took some gray area and offered his spin. We’re entering Harry Turtledove territory, which just isn’t my cup of tea.

All this might sound like me being extremely harsh in my assessment, and to a certain extent I guess it is, because I was hoping to like this one as much as I do Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs. I _did_ like it, but it failed to live up to expectations that I had built. Right now I would probably rate it 7/10, squarely behind Tarantino’s first three movies.

And a fabulous post this is, one well worth staying up for! Well Dave, I think you managed to chart the middle ground of the positions presented on this active thread today. You lean toward the negative a bit, but your 7/10 kind of pulls that up. I gave it 5/10 (** 1/2 stars of 5). I hear exactly what you are saying with the dialogue and revisionist history though. I am finding it most interesting how people are lining up on opposite ends with so many of the components here. Ha, I like that Harry Tutledove quip.
But it’s clear that MOST people on this thread today do like the film, no doubt about that.

Landa’s was a performance that I bring up where I could recognize that I was probably supposed to find some of the antic humorous, but it just wasn’t that funny for me. There were moments of course, but a lot of the scenes involving Landa I thought were too drawn out.

I just read through this entire thread. And one thing has become clear: like all of Tarantino’s films you either love it or hate it and INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS is no different from his previous films in that way. Many of you loved the film and it is, in my opinion, not completely without merit. However, I personally feel that the good is most definately out-numbered by the bad. Jamie eluded to certain scenes in this film as “rubber-band” sequences, stretched out till the tension snaps. Well, this is fine, and I understand the terminology applied. But, and I’m probably only joined by Sam in this assessment, if your gonna stretch a scene for all its worth then I think I’d have liked it better if I really thought the sequence or the characters were worth it. I didn’t care for one person in this film or the plight they were on. Its a film about dispicable people after dispicable people. To me this is nothing more than an exercise by the director to see how far he can push his sadism at us.

Take PULP FICTION as the best example. Although the film is about hit-men, coke-whores, drug czars and failed boxers, each chapter introduced the characters so intimately that regardless of the dispicable acts they commit you still feel and care for them and their situation. John Travolta’s character, Vincent Vega-a heroin aqddict/cold blooded “trigger” man, performs heinous atrocities throughout the film. However, the warm comraderie illustrated in the opening scenes with his partner Jules (Samuel L Jackson) underlines a human quality that allows the viewer to accept and, ultimately, forgive the gleeful sadism he will perform as the film presses on. Matter of fact, when Vincent is killed, we generally feel moments of loss for a person and not a characature. With this new film, only Soshanna is human and even she fails to capture our loyalties as she becomes so sadistically over-the-top maniacal. Had the director added a moment of tearful resolve for her I might have found a character to identify with.

Ill combat one more thing and I keep my mouth shut forever on this film. This IS definately Tarantino’s most violent film. Sam refers to the Ear Carving sequence in RESERVOIR DOGS as the next most violent thing. I’ll remind everyone, that scene is SUGGESTIVE violence. As Mr. White stradles the policeman, the camera pans away from the action as the victim screams in pain. That’s a far cry from a Nazi vehemently strangling a woman to death in front of our eyes. The BASEBALL BAT sequence in IB is one for the books. I mean really, was it necessary to show us a man getting his head reduced to a bag of loose change right in front of us? After the first hit to his head the sickening crack was MORE than enough. One bullet to kill Hitler would have been fine rather than having us WATCH a machine gun turn his face into a swiss cheese. The cutting Hitchcock employs to the shower sequence in PSYCHO suggests more than is actually seen. He’s saying “you put it together.” Tarantino should take lessons from the MASTER.

I dunno about that. Hitchcock held back largely because he couldn’t get away with too much violence at the time. He was a lot more uninhibited towards the end, in “Frenzy”. I wouldn’t call him the MASTER, myself, but I’m in the minority here.

You have to understand who Tarantino likes… maybe his master is L. Fulci. He loves his ‘Zombi’. In this film environment we should be applauding a filmmaker for making the film that he wants to make. if they aren’t the films you want, perhaps you should start writing as QT did… everything else just sounds like a little dog yipping at his ankles.

Bob, think again. It wasn’t unheard of of showing a knife actually cutting into a body. Take for instance the moment Grace Kelly imbeds a pair of scissors into her assaulters back in DIAL M FOR MURDER. Jessica Tandy walks into a close-up of a neighbor dead on the floor with his eyes gouged out in THE BIRDS. I can go on. Fact is, Hitch had the ability to get more graphic than he CHOSE to. The cutting of the shower sequence was a concious style decision by the director. He believed the viewers imagination was far more furtile than we take them to be today. Tarantino could have done the same with this film. The fact he chose NOT to was a concious decision and , in my mind anyway, a sadistic one.

Perhaps you’re right, regarding violence in Hitch. On second thought, I was thinking of the discovery of the nude victim in “Frenzy”, but that has more to do with his treatment of sexuality. Nudity would’ve ben more present in his films had it not been for the times, for example in “Psycho”, where he had to scrap a shot showing Janet Leigh’s butt (or at least her double’s).

Still, he’s not a favorite director of mine. Whenever people talk about him, all I can do is think of ol’ Fritz Lang. There was a true master of suspense, in my book…

Now Bob, you shock me about what you say there about Hitchcock. I have yet to meet a person who doesn’t venerate him, indeed many consider him the greatest directors of all-time. He’s certainly one of the most prolific. Tony d’Ambra, though, doesn’t care for several of his films.

Hitch’s cinema, by and large, is a bit too superficial and unrealistic where it counts. I particularly can’t stand his Cary Grant films– he just never feels too believable for me in any given situation. I do make an exception, however, for the films he made with James Stewart– “Rope”, “Rear Window” and “Vertigo” are all great.

The 39 Steps
The Lady Vanishes
Psycho
Shadow of a Doubt
Rebecca
Notorious
Strangers on a Train
I Confess
Blackmail (1929)

Actually Rope would be 4/5 for me.

I am debating now at whether I will see a 3:45 P.M. showing of Ang Lee’s WOODSTOCK at our local multiplex with Lucille, and maybe one or two of the kids. We return to school full time on Tuesday, we are taking advantage of day hour freedom a bit more. I don’t have much hope for this film, even if Lee has mostly pulled it off with:

“Rope” is easily my favorite Hitchcock film. It’s actually the only one I’ve bothered to watch more than a couple of times. Whenever it’s on television, I can’t help but sit through all of it. Hitch was best when he was experimenting and toying with the medium. The problem for me, however, is most of the time he wasn’t so much pushing boundaries as he was playing expertly inside them. Again, I prefer the contemporary works of Lang. Even in his studio-compromised work, he was a deeper filmmaker than Hitch.

Lang isn’t on Hitchcock’s level? I think that’s mainly because of how forgotten Lang has been, nowadays. His heyday was his German work during the 20’s and 30’s– once he came to America, the studio system was far too constrictive, and he was only able to push out a few masterpieces– “Fury”, “Hangmen Also Die”, “Scarlet Street”, etc. Hitchcock, on the other hand, adapted to Hollywood easily– his style was shallow enough to avoid censorship, but slick enough to attract major talent again and again. His work survives because of how easily he was able to fit into the pop-culture milieu of post-war cinema.

Lang’s previous work, especially during the silent-era, is genuinely classic in a way that Hitch can’t touch– the “Dr. Mabuse” series paints a lively portrait of German political climates through the guise of a criminal mastermind’s exploits through the Weimar era, Nazi reign and post-war years; “Die Nibelungen” conjures up the Nordic myths of old while at the same time turning all their conventions upside down; “M” might be the definitive police-procedural, an innovative use of sound in cinema and a powerful humanistic statement; and no matter how silent “Metropolis” is, it more than speaks for itself.

Hitchcock is easily the more accessible of the two directors, I’ll give him that. Maybe that’s why Hollywood gave him such a wider latitude. I only wish that Lang were given the same creative freedom– if he were given an equal chance to prove himself, maybe he’d enjoy equal popularity today.

I’m pretty much right in the middle. I’m an OK fan of Hitchcock (and I need to see many of his non-classics too), I recognize his brilliance but he never seemed eccentric enough for me, or something like that.

With all due respect (and I respect you quite a bit) but how many serious film critics, scholars and audiences would be “surprised” at someone saying that Lang may fall short of Hitchcock on balance? Granted Lang had M, METROPOLIS, DIE NIEBELUNGEN and some great noirs, but Hitchcock was prolific to a fault. My favorite directors of all time are Bergman, Bresson, Chaplin and Ozu, but no one person has produced so many great films, nor has been as influential. Those “slickness” arguments don’t convince me of much. I’ve spent a good part of my life reading some of the greatest scholars on Hitchcock, and he’s one of the few that goes into the genius category. It’s tantamount to diminishing Welles, Renoir or Bunuel for me. Hitchcock is a true master for all sorts of reasons.

Now, I wish I didn’y just waste two hours of my life watching Ang Lee’s TAKING WOODSTOCK. God, that was torture.

As many here already know Nick Ray’s IN A LONELY PLACE was brought back for nine days to the Film Forum after its initial run during the Ray festival there. While the Brit Noir Festival will run until the second week of September on the middle screen, IN A LONELY PLACE is running until tomorrow on screen #3.

Although I’ve seen it many times, I have never managed it on the big screen, so after that bad experience this afternoon with TAKING WOODSTOCK, I am planning to head over to Manhattan shortly to see the Ray, as after tomorrow it will be gone. And tomorrow nigh Lucille and I will at the Brit Noir again to watch BRIGHTON ROCK and THE FALLEN IDOL, two beloved Greene classics, that will be relished on the big screen.

Sam, I appreciate your argument (even though I just don’t enjoy Hitch that much). But I’ll say again, Lang would have been just as prolific in churning out classics had it not been for his stormy relationship with Hollywood authority. Granted, some of the fault was with his own domineering personality, but so did Hitchcok. Lang’s mistake was targeting his rage against everybody– actors, screenwriters and producers alike– while Hitchcock saved his on-set sadism for his lovely leading ladies. If Lang had learned to play the Hollywood game of bullshit-with-a-smile a little more, he would’ve enjoyed the same type of creative freedom the “Master of Suspense” did, but then again, if he did that, he wouldn’t have been Lang.

Hitch was a fine director, I’ll give him that, but I’ll take Lang any day over him. Hitch is a little too middle-of-the-road for me– though his work could plumb great psychological and emotional elements, it was, for the most part, apolitical and unintellectual. The only one of his films that really put its foot down on any sort of politics that I can think of was “Lifeboat”, and that was probably more due to John Steinbeck. As for intellectualism, he clearly showed a passionate curiosity about different subject matters, but the way in which they were crammed into his characters’ mouths often feels a little uncomfortable. I think to the doctor’s explanation of multiple-personality disorder in “Psycho”, especially, as one of the worst kinds of proclamatory exposition out there.

However, I do like the preachy, theatrical paperback-Nietzsche psychobabble of “Rope”– it helps that you have actors like Stewart who can inject some self-aware humor into the philosophy, and make it sound like something you’d overhear at a party. Most of all, Hitchcock was a master not of suspense, really, but of mood, while Lang was a master of suspense, and more importantly, of ideas, even in his most compromised studio projects. At the risk of going on too long about this, however, let me just link you an article I wrote up about Lang’s wartime films. It probably sums up my admiration for his work better than any argument I’ll make here: http://www.theaspectratio.net/wartimelang.htm

Bob I just read that Lang piece. Absolutely brilliant, and I have seen all the films considered. Well, let’s remember that Lang was also a most prolific guy too. While I don’t consider him the equal of Hitchcock, I’ll agree with you that he is still one of the greatest of directors. M is among the supreme masterpieces of world cinema, but as you insightfully note there are a number of other great works.

Craft, Trantino has – but the far harder things to attain are invisible to the eye and can only be felt. Though it’s not politically correct to say it, such elements as Taste and Maturity do not come easily and are not equal. There’s only so much maturity that can be gained from being a videostore geek, watching low-grade movies. Junk in, junk out. He makes movies with the sensibility of a grinning psychopath, chronically immoral and at home with the corporations that finance him. Sadism as a hue on his palette.

Wow Bobby, I am smacking my lips even reading that. Tarantino lovers will cry foul of course, but I’m more inclined to agree with you than disagree. You have a unique way and talent of expressing yourself.

This is very true, but as I’ve said elsewhere does this necessarily mean he’s garbage? He reminds me of the graphic designer Art Chantry, takes trash and elevates it… sometimes it’s still trash but it’s worthwhile trash (is that an oxymoron?). Fact is some people sometimes like outrageous larger then life films.

I will admit I want nothing more for Tarantino but to make an adult, personal film. He does need to come down from the fence emotionally and politically, and make a more ‘serious’ film. I think about many other pulp directors… heck take Fuller a post away. He made all the pulp classics but he also made ‘The Big Red One’ and to a lesser degree ‘White Dog’ (and several serious others). At some point Tarantino needs to grow a pair and realize he’s 46. Kind of lost this summer is Soderbergh’s “The Girlfriend Experience”, it’s an adult movie and it movie like european art-house. Tarantino should take notes on how to make films 1:1 (fun:serious).

Another thing I wanted to add in regards to the violence which Sam (and others) feels is excessive and not necessary. I think about the first time we see any ‘excessive’ violence: the scalping and baseball bat sequence. What is the point of the violence in this scene? Sam (and others) say it has none; it’s ‘gratuitous’. I say the Basterds are doing it for a real reason and for one that would have been done (perhaps) in real life. They are trying to extract vital information from the Nazi’s to prepare their next move and so that they are not ambushed ahead. Sure, they are savage in there methods but in this sequence it’s to present a precedence to the Nazi’s of what to expect should you not give information or should you be expected to give information and do not. Is it sick? Maybe. Torture for information usually is. But it’s not entirely unnecessary to this plot or gratuitous. So basically it reduces the argument to a moral proclamation which I’ve been against from the start of this whole thing.

Hi! Sam Juliano, Allan, and WitD readers…
…Speaking of, Hitchcock as in Alfred…and his 1935 film The 39 Steps here goes some information that I picked up from that “second” (The first being T.S. (from over there at Screen Savour, but of course) Alfred Hitchcock aficionados Joel Gunz’s blog.

Ah, Dee Dee, thanks very much for both links there. I did see that fine Broadway musical of THE 39 STEPS, and had reviewed it here a while back. The Hitchcock Geek looks like great stuff. THE 39 STEPS is probably a film that should be seen FIRST if you are watching any kind of a marathon. It is a film I would have to label as a masterpieces, one of 8 or 9 in Hitchcock’s canon.
Few have matched Noirish City as a place for serious Hitchcock lovers over the past six months, and your tireless enthusiasm has been the primary reason.
This is the final comment I’ll be able to leave at WitD until late tonight, as I’m leaving with Lucille now to watch the Brit Noirs, THE FALLEN IDOL and BRIGHTON ROCK, to be seen at 8:20 and 10:00 P.M. at the Film Forum. Thanks again Dee Dee was those enrichments as always.

Pat – That shows you how my senility is taking over. SENSE AND SENSIBILITY is a film I adore (it was one of it’s years best 2 or 3 films) but I simply overlooked it while I quickly scribled those names off. Beautiful film! Thanks very much for the birthday greeting, and yes, I can well understand why at this point IB has spent itself! Ha!

Hi! Sam Juliano, Allan, Tony, and WitD readers…
I just found out from a film noir aficionado that it’s Sir Richard Attenborough birthday today…how very apropos considering that the Film Forum is screening the film Brighton Rock this evening.

By the way, Richard Attenborough turns 86 years old today…and to be completely honest I ‘am not to familiar with actor Richard Attenborough work on film, but here goes a very interesting link…Everything that you wanted to know about Sir Richard Attenborough, but was afraid to ask…

God Dee Dee, that is a great reference point there on Richard Attenborough. His ‘Pinkie’ which I just watched again at the FF is one of noir’s souless villains. It is indeed quite a coincidence that today is his birthday! Amazing. Thanks so much for posting this.

Bob, I will be honored to read your take, even if I know my ultimate comment will be in disagreement. Still I know I am a minority voice, and I’m sure your work here will be superlative. I will attend to it after my upcoming teacher’s meeting during lunch.

Having waited awhile to see Inglourious Basterds, I have to say that, although I really liked it, I do have mixed feelings about it and share some of Sam’s sentiments though maybe not always to the same degree.

(The prolonged, graphic violence did get to me as a bit too much although I got used to it.)

I prefer to view this film and likewise hope that this is a transitional work for Tarentino. IB had moments of greatness mixed with artifice, suggesting to me that the best may yet lie ahead and Tarentino still has some self-indulgence to work out of his system.

Sam, I found IB more deeply moving than you apparently did. Among the cast, who mostly were quite good, I’d like to add Denis Menochet (the farmer in the first scene) to the list of accomplished actors in this film.

Well Pierre, I very much appreciate hearing what you thought of this film, and have been eagerly awaiting to know your stand. Yes, I am sorry I didn’t like it more than I did, but I have confessed on these threads for vararious reasons that I was never much of a Tarantino fan in the first place. I will agree with you when you say that the film blended ‘moments of greatness’ with ‘artifice.’ As I’ve stated before the opening farmhouse scene was excellent, but other sections were tedious. But I’ve stated my case, one that has mostly been rejected. I did suspect you wouldn’t go for the excessive violence though.

Tremendous dissenting perspective, Sam. I understand what you are saying about the violence, though, to be completely honest, I tend to agree with Craig Kennedy and others. The violence is brutal but considering the subject matter and the film’s length–the vast, overwhelming bulk of which is dedicated to rich character-developing scenes of dialogue–I do not find it inordinate nor especially outrageous, though it is certainly portrayed in an unrelenting manner when it finally does emerge as a presence in the picture.

Great piece, once again. I’m worn out at the moment, having just written my own review of the film, here.

Great piece yet again Sam. This film was totally panned in Europe but received mostly good reviews at this end. Rather surprisingly the film will gross at least 110m in the US. This follows Pitt’s earlier equally surprising big grosser (for the genre) in Benjamin Button (a film I found rather cumbersome).

Top Clicks

Wonders in the Dark is a blog dedicated to the arts, especially film, theatre and music. An open forum is highly encouraged, as the site proctors are usually ready and able to engage with ongoing conversation.